Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[McBell]

You must not of read Price, he doesn't toss out experts opinions. That's just a cheap shot on your part.

No, it is not a cheap shot.
I never once claimed that Price dismisses anything.
That is a misunderstanding on your part.
However, i did heavily imply that YOU are dismissing experts opinions merely because they do not jive with yours.
And I still wonder what Price thinks about doing just that.

Secondly, I've stated on this board that there very well could be an historical Jesus behind the mythology, but I'm not going to merely assume there is, and I'm certainly not going to accept the appeals to authority that just so happen to coincide with Oberon's beliefs because Oberon says they know what they are talking about.

And Oberon is not expecting you to.
Oberon expects you to actually look at what the experts have said.
But instead you merely dismiss what the experts say merely because it does not jive with your opinion.


You forgot to answer this question:

And are you not doing with Robert M. Price what Robert M. Price is talking about with McDowell?​

 

[dogsgod]

No, it is not a cheap shot.
I never once claimed that Price dismisses anything.
That is a misunderstanding on your part.
However, i did heavily imply that YOU are dismissing experts opinions merely because they do not jive with yours.
And I still wonder what Price thinks about doing just that.


And Oberon is not expecting you to.
Oberon expects you to actually look at what the experts have said.
But instead you merely dismiss what the experts say merely because it does not jive with your opinion.


You forgot to answer this question:

And are you not doing with Robert M. Price what Robert M. Price is talking about with McDowell?​

I address arguments as they are presented with explanations, I also point out the fallacy of merely making appeals to authority which is Oberon's MO.

 

[dogsgod]

Back on the topic of this thread:

This divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, when an infant he escapes attempts to kill him, he demonstrates his precocious wisdom as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed on a hilltop, is vindicated and taken up to heaven.


I've read the gospels, the above description of Jesus is accurate. Even if there is an historical Jesus lurking behind this mythology, it is mythology non the less, and not unlike some others. Livy and Josephus et al didn't write of people in this setting. Even if what they wrote wasn't all true it was presented as factual and in a straight forward way, not metaphorical or allegorical. For these reasons among others, I disagree that it is illogical to view the gospels as a mythology.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's be objective. Even if the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds were written in the 2nd century, it makes no difference. The information passed down to these Jewish writers from their predecessors confirms that Jesus did exist.

I am being objective and it does make a big difference if you're suggesting that the mention, either directly or indirectly, of Yeshua is to be considered "evidence" that he existed. This is not the case.

As for the Shroud of Turin, it has never been proven to be a hoax. Every charge of the skeptics has been shown to be untrue. The one that has continued to be pressed upon the public is that it was 'paint' made to look like blood. When the researchers had long ago proved that it was definitely not paint.....it is actual blood.

Pope Nearly Endorses the Shroud of Turin, But Is It Real? | LiveScience

14th-century relic
The Shroud of Turin has been carbon dated not to the time of Christ but instead to the 14th century—perhaps not coincidentally about the time when the first record of the burial cloth appears. If the Turin Shroud really is the most important holy relic in history, it seems curious that its existence was unknown for 1,300 years.


Instead of accepting the fact that the shroud's cloth is far too new to have existed around the time of Jesus, advocates have challenged the carbon dating science, offering various reasons why the test was flawed.



They claim, for example, that contamination and/or the effects of a fire must have led to an incorrect date. Yet these effects would have only increased the margin of error by a few hundred years—not a millennium and a half. These claims would carry more weight if other (supposedly non-contaminated) parts of the shroud had been dated back 2,000 years, but no part of it is older than about 600 years.
The numbers just don't add up.



Last year an Italian scientist and his team replicated the Shroud of Turin with materials and tools available at the time of the shroud's origin. Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia, used linen identical to that on the shroud, made an impression over a volunteer's face and body, and artificially aged the cloth with heat. Garlaschelli's reproduction did not conclusively prove that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, but it did disprove the claim that the image is scientifically unexplainable and could not have been made by human hands.


Fakes and contradictions
There's another very good reason to suspect that the Shroud of Turin is a fake: the forger admitted it. As shroud researcher Joe Nickell noted in his book "Relics of the Christ," a document by "Bishop Pierre d'Arcis claimed that the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who painted it.'" Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.



Furthermore, Pope Benedict's claim that the Shroud of Turin is in "full correspondence with... the Gospels" is puzzling.



In fact, as Nickell has noted, "The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate 'napkin' over the face), as well as 'an hundred pound weight' of burial spices—not a trace of which appears on the cloth." So it seems that the Bible itself casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.

Where have YOU been for the last decade or so?

I do my research. Again, I'm not a noob so trying to insinuate that this particular cloth is genuine let alone the actual one used in the supposed burial ceremony is an elementary move on your part. The science shows that it isn't even genuine to the time and it in itself doesn't even meet the criteria of the book of John, as the article above describes. So what we have here is...you're not able to show that this is genuine to the time considering the science says it isn't and you're not even able to say for certaintly that it was used for the supposed burial of Yeshua...additionally, this particular shroud doesn't even match what's written in John.

 

[Oberon]

Back on the topic of this thread:

This divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, when an infant he escapes attempts to kill him, he demonstrates his precocious wisdom as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed on a hilltop, is vindicated and taken up to heaven.


I've read the gospels, the above description of Jesus is accurate. Even if there is an historical Jesus lurking behind this mythology, it is mythology non the less, and not unlike some others. Livy and Josephus et al didn't write of people in this setting. Even if what they wrote wasn't all true it was presented as factual and in a straight forward way, not metaphorical or allegorical. For these reasons among others, I disagree that it is illogical to view the gospels as a mythology.

JD Crossan on Price and the hero typology:

"...the Hero typology Price mentions is also at work with Jesus, but that no more negates his historical existence than the similar investment for Augustus negates that emperor's historical identity." p. 85

The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy.

It is improprer to propose, when it comes to ancient historical genres, a strict dichotomy between history and legend or myth. History, whether from the pen of herodotus or pliny or Luke, was laden with rumor, myth, magic, and legend. Some historians were better than others. Some used more eyewitness reports or were actually present for much of what they wrote about. But to discount the gospels as falling into the genre of ancient biography because they clearly contain mythical elements is to misunderstand ancient biography.

 

[tigrers99]

Dirty Penguin,


I probably should have tried to come to a point we both agreed on that if Jesus truly is our Advocate, that he would wish for us to have our nature changed from carnal...to Spiritual. That He would not want a bunch of carnal people trying to fake themselves and others into believing they were children of God by following a bunch of ceremonial commandments.

I think the evidence of Jesus' enemies writing of Him is pretty strong and very convincing. As far as the physical evidence of the Shroud being His burial cloth, I think is also convincing. We should remember why another dating test has to be conducted. What occurred before the first one in 1988 was performed is very, very, interesting. The 3 teams of secular scientists had asked the caretakers of the artifact at what time in history their organization came into possession of it. The responded that it was in the mid 13th century. So it is no suprise that the scientists dated the artifact to the mid 13th century. Unfortunately, the fear of religious obligation is also very strong in the scientific community. It would be very rude for me to address every argument (that already has been refuted) that skepics have tried to make against this artifact because it would be derailing this thread. You are correct in that the artifact only confirms (Mt.27:59) & (Mk.15:46).

 

[dogsgod]

JD Crossan on Price and the hero typology:

"...the Hero typology Price mentions is also at work with Jesus, but that no more negates his historical existence than the similar investment for Augustus negates that emperor's historical identity." p. 85

The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy.

Crossan said it, you believe it, that settles it. For one, no one is saying it does, it's a really stupid argument and I can't believe someone as knowledgeable as Crossan suggests it, as if anyone has suggested such nonsense. No one is negating Jesus' existence on such grounds, no one is suggesting that because the Jesus stories are legends Jesus couldn't have existed, birth stories attached to Augustus prove that some historical people can be legendary. The problem is, what do we know of this historical Jesus if indeed there is one aside from the mythology at work here. Jesus is cloaked in mythological garb which Crossan admits when he states that the Hero typology Price mentions is also at work with Jesus. But what makes Crossan compare Jesus stories to the Augustus' historical record rather than that of Hercules? Not that ancient people didn't believe Hercules was from sometime in the past, but Augustus has a straight forward historical record in addition to any mythological attachments, and one that can be pieced together from known authors and their sources.

So what makes Crossan believe Jesus is historical? If we put his quote in context by reading a little further:

Third, the dying-rising gods have nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus-at least not for Paul. He comes from a basis in Pharisaic Judaism to announce that the general resurrection has already begun with that of Jesus-that is why he can argue in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 that no Jesus resurrection means no general resurrection; no general resurrection means no Jesus resurrection. They stand or fall together for Paul, and he could never even imagine that "resurrection" is some special privilege for Jesus on the analogy of a dying-rising divinity."

OK, let's accept that Jesus is historical. But when in the past did this Jesus live on earth? The earliest writings, that of the epistles don't say but they do give an indication when he couldn't have. As Price notes, "It is hard to imagine that the authors of Romans 13:3 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 (where we read that Roman governors punish only the wicked, not the righteous) believed that Jesus died at the order of Pontius Pilate."

I'm not going to pick and choose, I'm not going to accept what the epistles say and ignore what they say at the same time.

 

[McBell]

I address arguments as they are presented with explanations, I also point out the fallacy of merely making appeals to authority which is Oberon's MO.

One wonders why you are going to such great lengths to ignore the question...

 

[dogsgod]

One wonders why you are going to such great lengths to ignore the question...

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

 

[McBell]

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

I do not know.
Thus the reason I am wondering.


:slap:
Pay attention.

 

[Oberon]

As Price notes, "It is hard to imagine that the authors of Romans 13:3 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 (where we read that Roman governors punish only the wicked, not the righteous) believed that Jesus died at the order of Pontius Pilate."

Paul didn't write 1 Peter, and Romans 13:3 discusses hoi archontes not Roman governors.

I'm not going to pick and choose,

And yet you do. You refuse to read actual scholarship, and instead pick out works mainly by non-experts whose view coincides with yours. You ignore those parts of the primary sources which contradict your view, and focus on tearing out of context what you can to support you.

 

[dogsgod]

[/i]
Paul didn't write 1 Peter, and Romans 13:3 discusses hoi archontes not Roman governors. {/quote]

Didn't say he did.

And yet you do. You refuse to read actual scholarship, and instead pick out works mainly by non-experts whose view coincides with yours. You ignore those parts of the primary sources which contradict your view, and focus on tearing out of context what you can to support you.

If you say so.

 

[Oberon]

Didn't say he did.

So what was your point? As Dunn notes, Paul's letter's DO give us more than a hint as to when he lived: "Why no refence to Paul's preaching of Christ crucified...How can price actually assert that 'we should never guess from the Epistles that Jesus died in any particular historical or political context,' when it is well enough known that crucifixion was a Roman political method of execution characteristically for rebels and slaves? " So why state that the epistles give us no clue that Jesus was executed by pontius pilate by quoting Paul when he says nothing about the romans and then ignoring his statements about Jesus' very roman execution?

 

[turntechGodhead]

Russell's Teapot

'nuff said

 

[logician]

As far as the physical evidence of the Shroud being His burial cloth, I think is also convincing

ROFLMAO

Almost as convincing as claiming second or third hand hearsay from unknown writers is
"certain" evidence of someone's existence, even though that "someone's" life could not possibly have matched up to the miracles and other stories described in the gospels.

These guys are a laugh a minute. :clap

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is a difference between appealing to scholarly consensus or a particular work of scholarship and appealing to authority. The whole point behind the fallacy of appealing to authority is that the title (king, church, whatever) is the only thing that matters. By citing scholarship one is appealing to arguments built upon more arguments by experts in a field.

You can't read greek, latin , or hebrew. You haven't read the vast majority of the requisite primary sources. You haven't read the vast majority of the secondary sources. Most of what you references comes either from the internet or from other non-experts. The tiny minority of people with some expertise in some field who you reference are 1) with one exception not experts in this field and 2) don't publish works you cite from any academic press or peer-reviewed journal.

Yet somehow, you think that your view of josephus, the gospels, etc, is something that should be considered instead of hundreds or thousands of published experts from any number of religious backgrounds who have written on these subjects?

This really is the bottom line.

 

[dogsgod]

This really is the bottom line.

I'm not surprised you buy into such tripe. Appealing to scholarship as in all scholars agree with me does not equate to citing scholarship and I no longer expect either of you to understand the difference. BTW, that there is a scholarly consensus on the topic is a myth, but don't let that stop you from keeping the faith.

 

[dogsgod]

ROFLMAO

Almost as convincing as claiming second or third hand hearsay from unknown writers is
"certain" evidence of someone's existence, even though that "someone's" life could not possibly have matched up to the miracles and other stories described in the gospels.

These guys are a laugh a minute. :clap

Yes, evangelical comedians.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not surprised you buy into such tripe. Appealing to scholarship as in all scholars agree with me does not equate to citing scholarship and I no longer expect either of you to understand the difference. BTW, that there is a scholarly consensus on the topic is a myth, but don't let that stop you from keeping the faith.

Yes, you defeat sound arguments by the two websites that you copy from.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, you defeat sound arguments by the two websites that you copy from.

Sound arguments, you guys really are comedians.